Administrative Litigation

Nullity Judgment before the TFJA: When and How to Challenge Resolutions

March 15, 2026 — Enrique Benet-Gregg

Admissibility, Deadlines, and Strategy in Federal Administrative Contentious Proceedings

The nullity action before the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal constitutes the principal mechanism for jurisdictional control over acts of the federal public administration in Mexico. Its proper articulation, from the evaluation of admissibility through probative strategy, substantially determines the success of the nullification claim. For investors, developers, and property owners with operations subject to resolutions from the SAT, IMSS, CONAGUA, SEMARNAT, or any other federal fiscal or administrative authority, understanding the procedural architecture of this action is an operational necessity.

Applicable Regulatory Framework

The Federal Law of Administrative Contentious Procedure (LFPCA), published in the DOF on December 1, 2005, with reforms effective through 2026, governs proceedings before the TFJA. In fiscal matters, the Federal Tax Code (CFF) complements the LFPCA. Articles 116 to 133 of the CFF regulate the reconsideration remedy as a prior instance. The distinction between its optional character and the circumstances in which its exhaustion is mandatory is addressed in detail in the section on admissibility. The Organic Law of the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal (LOTFJA), reformed in 2022, defines the material and territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal, as well as the composition of its regional and specialized chambers and the Superior Chamber.

Challengeable Acts and Admissibility

Article 2 of the LFPCA delineates the scope of admissibility of the nullity action. Challengeable are: final resolutions issued by federal fiscal authorities; administrative acts that terminate a procedure, an instance, or resolve a case file; resolutions imposing administrative sanctions; and those issued in matters of foreign trade, state patrimonial liability, and civil pensions. The concept of final resolution is nodal: the First Chamber of the SCJN has consistently held, in accordance with reiterated interpretive criteria. To verify the specific criteria applicable to the particular case, it is recommended to consult the theses registered in the search engine of the Federal Judicial Journal at sjf.scjn.gob.mx under the headings “final resolution” and “nullity action admissibility.”

Admissibility is also conditioned by the general rule of optionality of the prior administrative remedy and by its mandatory exceptions. The distinction operates as follows: as a rule, article 120 of the CFF establishes that the taxpayer may freely choose between filing the reconsideration remedy before the issuing authority or proceeding directly to the TFJA; as an exception, other statutes impose prior exhaustion as mandatory, with the most relevant cases being article 17 of the Federal Law on State Patrimonial Liability in matters of patrimonial liability and certain specific cases under the Customs Law. The practical consequence is significant: proceeding to the TFJA without having exhausted a mandatory remedy generates a ground for inadmissibility that the Tribunal must declare ex officio. Therefore, before filing the complaint, it must be determined with precision whether the subject matter of the challenged act is subject to the general rule of the CFF or to one of the mandatory exhaustion regimes.

Deadlines: The Most Critical Boundary in Administrative Litigation

Article 13 of the LFPCA establishes the deadlines for filing the complaint. The general rule, provided in section I of that article, is thirty business days counted from the day following the date on which notification of the challenged resolution takes effect. This thirty business day deadline is the generally applicable one, including cases in which the resolution imposes a determined tax credit. There is no automatic extension to forty-five business days in the current text of article 13 of the LFPCA linked to that criterion; any differentiated deadline applicable to a specific case must be based on the exact statutory fraction or provision that provides for it, and must not be assumed without verifying the precise legislative source.

In the case of deemed negative resolutions, the deadline to exercise the nullification claim is, in accordance with consolidated interpretive criteria, five years counted from the date the deemed negative was formed by operation of law. The formation of the deemed negative by administrative silence is governed by article 37 of the CFF; however, the five-year deadline to challenge it does not derive from that article, but from jurisprudential criteria that have interpreted the right of action in these cases in light of the principles of legal certainty and prescription in administrative matters. While the deemed negative subsists without express resolution, the nullification claim may be exercised within that time horizon.

The Collegiate Tribunals of Circuit of the XXVII Circuit, with headquarters in Quintana Roo, have established through reiterated interpretive criteria. An error in that calculation is equivalent, in practice, to the loss of the right of action.

Structure of the Complaint and Procedural Strategy

Pursuant to article 14 of the LFPCA, the complaint must contain: the name of the plaintiff and their tax address; the challenged resolution and the defendant authority; the facts giving rise to the complaint; the grounds for challenge; the evidence offered; and the specific petition for nullity. The omission of any of these elements triggers the clarification requirement under article 17 of the same law, with the risk that, if not remedied within the five business days granted, the complaint shall be deemed not filed.

The most effective strategy in grounds for challenge rests on distinguishing with precision between formal defects and substantive defects. The former attack the deficient motivation and substantiation of the act in terms of article 16 of the Constitution and article 38, section IV of the CFF; the latter question the substantive legality of the determination. According to reiterated interpretive criteria of the First Chamber of the SCJN.

A first-order strategic aspect that is frequently underestimated is the relationship between the nullity action and the subsequent direct amparo. The sentences of the TFJA are subject to review through direct amparo before the competent Collegiate Courts of Circuit, pursuant to articles 170 and 171 of the Amparo Law. This avenue allows for challenging both procedural violations committed during the nullity judgment and the unconstitutionality or non-compliance with international conventions of the applied rules. The most important procedural consequence for strategy from the outset of the judgment is the following: the grounds for challenge and legal arguments that have not been expressly raised in the nullity complaint before the TFJA cannot be introduced as violation concepts in the subsequent direct amparo, since the Collegiate Court only reviews what was subject matter of the administrative litigation. This restriction converts the initial complaint before the TFJA into the most important legal document of the entire litigation: the arguments must be articulated exhaustively and anticipate both the defense of the authority and any possible constitutional claims that may be necessary in amparo proceedings. A reactively constructed complaint or with generic grounds for challenge compromises not only the outcome before the TFJA, but also the prospects for success in the subsequent constitutional remedy.

The Reconsideration Appeal as a Prior Strategic Decision

When article 120 of the CFF grants the taxpayer the option of filing the reconsideration appeal before going to the TFJA, that choice is not neutral: it has strategic consequences that must be evaluated case by case. In favor of the reconsideration appeal, it may be considered that its filing interrupts the deadline for presenting the nullity action, which may be advantageous when additional time is required to prepare the litigation strategy; that the resolution issued on the appeal constitutes a formal and written record of the legal position of the authority, which facilitates identifying the arguments that must be refuted before the TFJA; and that, in certain cases, the appeal allows limiting or simplifying the controversy before reaching the Court, reducing the complexity of the subsequent litigation. Against the reconsideration appeal, it must be considered that the authority may, when ruling on the appeal, issue a resolution that modifies the original one unfavorably, increasing the amount of the credit or incorporating new grounds that strengthen its position; that during the processing of the appeal, the execution of the act is not automatically suspended without guarantee, which exposes the taxpayer to the effects of the Administrative Collection Procedure if it does not furnish bond timely; and that in matters where the legal position of the authority is evidently weak in terms of motivation and substantiation, going directly to the TFJA may be more efficient. The decision must be adopted with specialized advice before the thirty business day deadline expires.

The Suspension of the Challenged Act

Article 28 of the LFPCA regulates the suspension of execution of the challenged administrative act and establishes two access routes with different requirements and effects.

The first route is automatic suspension through guarantee: it operates by operation of law when the plaintiff offers sufficient guarantee of the fiscal interest, provided that it is not acts that compromise national security or public order. In matters of tax credits, the guarantee is quantified pursuant to article 141 of the CFF, admitting among its modalities deposit, bond, mortgage and pledge. Once the guarantee is offered in the required terms, the TFJA must order the suspension without exercising discretion over the substance of the challenged act.

The second avenue is discretionary suspension without bond, applicable in exceptional cases where execution of the act would cause damages that are difficult or impossible to repair for the plaintiff and where the appearance of a valid legal right is manifest. This modality requires an interlocutory ruling from the Court in which the harm to the plaintiff is weighed against the public interest at stake. The timeframes for obtaining a suspension ruling through this avenue are variable: in TFJA practice, the regional chambers typically resolve suspension requests within the first business days following their submission, although the complexity of the record and the chamber’s workload may extend that time.

A specific risk that affects assets in the Riviera Maya with particular frequency is the invocation by the authority of the public order exception to resist suspension. Authorities such as PROFEPA, CONAGUA, and the Customs Authority at Cancún airport have consistently invoked this exception in environmental inspection proceedings, federal maritime-terrestrial zone concession matters, and import matters, arguing that paralysis of the challenged act would affect environmental protection or customs revenue collection. The TFJA has accepted this argument in some cases to deny or restrict suspension, which means that in those areas the precautionary strategy must anticipate the authority’s opposition and reinforce arguments regarding irreparability of damage and appearance of valid legal right from the very submission of the request. Obtaining suspension at the outset of the litigation is frequently as strategically important as winning on the merits: it prevents attachments in the execution phase and preserves the client’s operational continuity during the process.

Implications for Investors with Assets in the Riviera Maya

For operators with real estate or tourism portfolios in Quintana Roo, the nullity proceeding is the natural avenue to challenge PROFEPA resolutions on environmental matters, land use determinations issued based on federal ecological zoning programs, tax credits derived from SAT audits of administration trusts or foreign investment vehicles, and administrative sanctions imposed in federal inspection proceedings. In all these cases, the correct identification of the competent chamber, whether the Regional Chamber of the Gulf-Caribbean or a specialized chamber of the Superior Chamber, directly affects the possibility of success.

Operative Conclusion

The nullity proceeding before the TFJA is a high-precision technical instrument. The thirty business-day period does not allow for extension or reconsideration; the lack of sufficiently articulated grounds for challenge compromises the nullity on the merits and closes the doors to subsequent direct amparo; and the failure to request suspension may render any subsequent favorable judgment abstract. The difference between a well-structured proceeding from the complaint and one constructed reactively is, frequently, the difference between annulling the act and upholding it.

IBG Legal is a boutique firm specialized in federal administrative and tax litigation, with practice concentrated on defending foreign investment trusts before SAT audits, challenging PROFEPA resolutions on environmental impact matters, and representing hotel chains and marina operators before the TFJA in matters affecting assets in Quintana Roo and the Riviera Maya. Our office in Cancún handles contentious administrative litigation before the Regional Chamber of the Gulf-Caribbean and federal inspection proceedings in the region; our Mexico City office handles matters before the Superior Chamber of the TFJA, specialized chambers, and Circuit Collegiate Courts in direct amparo; and our Querétaro office handles preventive tax planning and structuring of investment vehicles for developers in the tourism and real estate sector. For specialized guidance on your particular case, contact us.

Sources and References

Legislation

Federal Administrative Contentious Procedure Act (LFPCA), published in the DOF on December 1, 2005; reforms in effect as of 2026. Articles 2, 13 (section I, general rule of thirty business days), 14, 17, 28.
Federal Tax Code (CFF), DOF December 31, 1981; latest relevant reform published in the DOF on November 12, 2021. Articles 37 (formation of implied negative by administrative silence), 38 section IV, 116 to 133 (motion for reconsideration), 141.
Organic Law of the Federal Administrative Justice Court (LOTFJA), DOF July 18, 2016; reform 2022. Articles on material and territorial jurisdiction.
Federal Law on State Patrimonial Liability, DOF December 31, 2004. Article 17 (mandatory exhaustion of prior administrative remedy in patrimonial liability matters).
Amparo Law, DOF April 2, 2013; reforms in effect. Articles 170 and 171 (direct amparo against sentences of the TFJA).
Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. Article 16, first and sixteenth paragraphs, regarding motivation and substantiation of acts of authority.

Judicial Criteria

SCJN, First Chamber: Interpretive criteria reiterated to the effect that the contested act before the TFJA must have created, modified or extinguished concrete legal situations to be considered a final resolution; without this requirement, the proceeding is inadmissible. The specific criteria are sjf.scjn.gob.mx.
SCJN, First Chamber: Interpretive criteria reiterated regarding the distinction between outright nullity and nullity for purposes depending on whether the formal defect prevented the exercise of defense or whether the substantive result would be unaltered upon restarting the proceeding.
Collegial Circuit Courts of the XXVII Circuit (Quintana Roo): Interpretive criteria reiterated regarding the computation of the deadline for filing the nullity action, depending on the notification modality used: personal, through tax mailbox or by posting. sjf.scjn.gob.mx.
Jurisprudential criteria on implied negative: The five-year deadline to challenge implied negative resolutions derives from jurisprudential criteria that interpret the right of action and the principles of legal certainty in administrative matters, not from Article 37 of the CFF (whose purpose is solely to regulate the formation of the implied negative). The applicable criteria are.

Doctrine

Margáin Manautou, Emilio. On Administrative Contentious, Annulment or Illegality Matters. 15th ed. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico, 2008.
Díaz Soberanes, Ricardo. The Federal Administrative Contentious Proceeding. 3rd ed. Editorial Themis, Mexico, 2010.
Delgadillo Gutiérrez, Luis Humberto. Elements of Administrative Law, second course. 6th ed. Editorial Limusa, Mexico, 2006. (Reference on Mexican administrative law regarding contestable administrative acts, admissibility of nullity proceedings and principles of federal administrative contentious matters, directly applicable to the analysis of Articles 2 and 13 of the LFPCA.)

Official Sources

Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF): publication of reforms to the LFPCA, CFF and LOTFJA. Available at dof.gob.mx.
Federal Administrative Justice Court: jurisprudence and individual opinions on administrative contentious matters. Available at tfja.gob.mx.
Weekly Judicial Journal of the Federation: criteria of the SCJN and Collegial Circuit Courts, including opinions on admissibility of nullity proceedings, deadline computation, nullity for purposes and implied negative. Available at sjf.scjn.gob.mx.